[The Police File]What Matters More Than the Identity of the 'Lee Jaemyung Attacker'

The police investigation into Kim Mo (67), the assailant who shocked the nation by attacking Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, at the start of the new year, has concluded. The much-anticipated disclosure of his identity did not take place. The Busan Metropolitan Police Agency held a Personal Information Disclosure Review Committee meeting on the 9th but ultimately decided to keep the information confidential. This decision sparked controversy, with some criticizing the police for "catering to the government’s interests."

The police did not provide a clear reason, but several assumptions can be made. First, there is no precedent for disclosing personal information solely on charges of attempted murder. In South Korea, there are about 260 cases of murder and around 400 cases of attempted murder annually. Not all of these cases result in public disclosure of the perpetrator’s identity. Looking at criminals whose identities were disclosed during police investigations last year, most were heinous offenders such as Cho Seon, the knife-wielding attacker in Sillim-dong; Choi Won-jong, the knife attacker at Seohyeon Station; and Choi Yoon-jong, the rapist and murderer in Sillim-dong park. Their crimes were extremely brutal and caused significant loss of life. Moreover, during July and August last year, these offenders posted online threats such as "I will stab," which made disclosure necessary to raise public awareness.

In contrast, Kim, who attacked Lee, differs from these violent criminals. He is closer to an extremist “true believer” or “terrorist” targeting politicians based on misguided beliefs and ideology. Such offenders do not consider their crimes wrong; rather, they believe they are enacting “justice.” Therefore, disclosing the identity of a true believer can instill a misguided sense of heroism in others with extreme ideologies, potentially encouraging further crimes.

It also does not meet the key criterion of “public interest necessity” for disclosure. The crime scene and investigation details were reported in real time, causing significant public shock and strong criticism of political terrorism. This has reduced the likelihood of similar crimes occurring. Thus, the public benefit expected from disclosure is minimal. Since more than half of the Personal Information Disclosure Review Committee members are external experts, it is difficult to claim that the police unilaterally decided to withhold the information.

More attention should be paid to why this incident occurred and whether the subsequent response was appropriate, rather than focusing on Kim’s name and face. Ultimately, resolving political extremism is the responsibility of the political sphere. As long as media that fuel confirmation bias and politicians who exploit it continue, deepening public division, true believers like Kim could emerge anytime, anywhere.

The police response also warrants scrutiny. They formed a 68-member investigation headquarters and launched a large-scale probe. This is comparable in size to the investigation teams for the 2018 Jecheon Sports Center fire, which killed 29 people (78 members), and the 2019 Miryang nursing hospital fire, which killed 46 (65 members). Regardless of the victim’s prominence as a leading politician, the number of personnel deployed was large relative to the case scale. There has also been criticism regarding the establishment of “dedicated protection teams for key figures” such as party leaders in each provincial police agency to strengthen political security. For example, when Han Dong-hoon, Emergency Response Committee Chairman of the People Power Party, visited Gwangju on the 4th, 340 officers were deployed?6 to 7 times the number assigned during the attack on Lee. A post by a field officer questioning the excessive deployment appeared on the police internal network.

All officers assigned to the investigation headquarters and political security have their usual duties. Other investigations and civil complaints inevitably get deprioritized. While crimes against politically influential figures should not be taken lightly, it is also undesirable for the police to overreact out of political considerations. The burden of such overreach ultimately falls on ordinary citizens.